Kudos.

Now that I have your attention, let's consider the facts. We know that the light energy from the sun that is not reflected by clouds or snow is absorbed by the oceans or the surface of the earth. The heat generated there is transferred to the lower levels of the atmosphere by conduction and convection. At night (day too), the excess heat is reradiated at longer wave lengths back into outer space. However, greenhouse gases reabsorb some of this, mostly in the lower troposphere. At the top of the troposphere, certain gases, including CO2 reradiate heat more efficiently to outer space, making this altitude colder than would be anticipated based on the adiabatic temperature lapse.

The bottom line is that since the troposphere is heated from below, cooled from above, and "hot air" is less dense than cold air, and tends to rise, the troposphere is, energetically speaking, "upside-down". Another way of looking at it is to say that it is "full of potential energy". One measure of the energy content at a particlular location at a particular time is the CAPE, described in the article.

Well, you ask, why doesn't the troposphere simply "right itself" by flipping over?

The answer is that sometimes it does. However, that is usually not necessary, since the excess heat is "slowly" transported upward during the day by small-scale updrafts and downdrafts and surface winds that impinge on mountain ranges to provide larger-scale turbulence. But the only mechanism that it has to accomplish a "wholesale" overturning from which we can extract work, is through the formation of a "vortex", the common forms of which are tornados and hurricanes. These form to relieve the "excess stress" built up either during the day in the case of tornados, or during the "summer season" in the case of hurricanes.

Now potential energy in the atmosphere is insufficient, by itself, to create a vortex. Rotation of surface winds is also required. Due to particular local wind patters, rotation is achieved in "tornado alley" in the spring. Also, rotation is induced near the equator by Coriolis forces in large-scale air masses, leading the the formation of hurricanes.

The engineering challenge, in my opinion, to developing this technology is to efficiently create enough rotational momentum to the surface air coming into the vortex, by building curved walls, so that it overcomes both friction and "local minima" in the CAPE that may occur at certain altitudes. Adding waste heat energy from existing power plants or warm sea water (Sea of Cortez?) allows the process to continue through the night and is frosting on the cake.

Let's look at additional benefits of the technology: 1) No more coal-fired power plants with the mess of mountain-top removal, mine disasters, mercury pollution, and GW threat. IMO, clean coal is just a ruse to allow building of the plant--CO2 will never be secuestered due to the cost and lack of use or convenient disposal site for the CO2. 2) The efficiency of existing plants can be increased by up to 30% by rejecting waste heat at the level of the tropopause instead of the surface of the earth where it does most harm. 3) Stack gases could efficiently be dispersed to the top of the troposphere while adding energy to the vortex. At the top, any aerosols contained would contribute to "global dimming" a short-term counter to GW. 4) Plants would be relatively smaller than todays central power stations, allowing them to be "distributed" reducing transmission costs. 5) The cheap power could be used to mitigate water shortages in dry areas, either through pumping or desalination, or, in some cases simply causing rain to occur and be collected. 7) Natural gas could be saved by using heat pumps for space heating from the electricity generated. 8) It could be used as a specific tool to cool a location to stop outgassing of the potent GHG, methane, from the tundra. There are others too numerous to name here.

The truth of the matter is that this technology has too much potential "not" to be developed and it will happen sooner or later. The only question is, by whom, and whether it will be soon enough to make a real difference in GW, and before more money is thrown down the pit of more mine activity, coal plants or nuclear energy. If you "nuke lovers" think that a plant can be build for the same cost as thirty years ago, think again. You would have to spend that much on the exchangers alone nowadays.

Isn't it time we complied with rule no. 1 of holes, which is when your getting in too deep, STOP DIGGING. So who's it going to be? A north-american company? What ab

What about the "Oil Companies", or are you still drooling about the potential riches of "buying back stock" and charging people through the nose, instead of finding real energy solutions? Ah, never mind, I think I know the answer. Maybe an independent? Anadarko, or do you think it's even riskier than your "deep water" plan amongst cat-5 hurricanes.

Well, I think if it's going to be done, it won't be here in NA. How about Europe--tired of depending on Russia for your "energy fix". Get used to it and better start polishing up your shuffle. India, China, Brazil--your climates are perfect for this technology and your needs are great. Whaddya say? Are you all going to leave the development task up to a guy in Utah with a business degree, and no budget working with telephone poles? Shame on you.

Why don't we all get together and make this a reality ASAP.

Best wishes from Oz,

John Robertson

My (1996) paper “Heat to Work Conversion during Upward Heat Convection – Part II” used heat source and sink temperatures of 290 K and 250K. My (2005) AGU presentation “Unrestrained Expansion – a Source of Entropy” used heat source and heat sink temperatures of 288 K and 255 K which is the consensus in the cited recent publications.

The troposphere is cooled by infrared radiation to space at an average rate of 1.5 °C/day. The heat to work conversion efficiency for heat transported from sea level to the 1000 m level is approximately 2%. The heat to work conversion efficiency for heat transported from sea level to the 20000 m level is approximately 30%. The calculations in Table 1 of the “Atmospheric Vortex Engine” technical description show that, for heat carried to the top of the troposphere, the incremental work produced is around 28% of the incremental heat received irrespective of whether the heat is received as sensible or latent heat. Capturing half of the work produced when heat is transported to the top of the troposphere would be sufficient to achieve an overall efficiency of 15%.

Buoyant air tends to rises up to its level of neutral equilibrium. At its final level, the lifted air in not significantly warmer than the ambient air. The warming results from the compression of the underlying air. Raising a 1 kPa layer from the bottom of the atmosphere (100 kPa level) to the 20 kPa level increases the temperature of the air the air originally at the 20 kPa level 4 time more than the temperature of the air at the 80 kPa level because the temperature increase is proportional to the pressure ratio (20 to 21 versus 80 to 81). As a result high updrafts warm the upper troposphere more than the lower troposphere. Deep updrafts increase the temperature of the upper troposphere; shallow updrafts, which are more common than deep updrafts, heat the lower troposphere. See manuscript: “Subsidence required to replace heat loss by infrared radiation to space with work of compression”.

Natural updrafts tend to be shallow because they lose their buoyancy as they are diluted by ambient air. When air rises in a vortex, centrifugal force prevents dilution and therefore the level of neutral buoyancy is higher. The AVE is mainly concerned with the efficiency of deep updrafts since centrifugal force prevents dilution and therefore the updrafts remain buoyant up to the higher level.